21–30 of 61 posts
For the sake of completeness and putting moral questions aside, what is currently the best way to publish similarly questionable information in a hard-to-censor way?
If you won't let me speak, delete my fucking comment.
For the sake of completeness and putting moral questions aside, what is currently the best way to publish similarly questionable information in a hard-to-censor way?
And now the Verge article has been scrubbed of the link to the Gitlab copy of the "ice-linkedin" repository. The real casualty here is going to be Linkedin. They don't publicize much how easily their data can be acquired in bulk.
You mean legally?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There can sometimes be a fine line between "enabling" and "meddling" I mean, surely you can't expect a site like GitHub with thousands of projects happening every day to be able to keep track of each one and make sure that something bad isnt being done with the project.
What? Yes you surely can expect that. That's what moderation is. That's what every site on the internet that allows user-submitted content does. Thats what Twitter does, YouTube does, Facebook does, Reddit does, and HN does. That's what GitHub does. GitHub is ultimately responsible for everything that is hosted on their site, and so of course they track each one and monitor them for violations of their policies. If t…
GitHub has a slightly different dynamic, being work focused, and there being no reason for most people to delve into random repositories and flag inappropriate ones.
Heck, even the underlying tech assumes problems fixed with patches rather than repository deletion, so if anthing it’s half way between Wikipedia and Geocities.
I don't get it... the author has a web site of his own. If he wants to distribute information, why not put it there instead of relying on third parties? (not offering any opinion on whether or not the data should be distributed, just questioning the means).
I didn't look at what format the "database" is in, or if the size would make it (im)practical to simply zip it up and email it around, but if the format isn't readily consumable by non-technical people, there wouldn't be any reason to not utilize a tool like git anyway.
Either you:
1. Don't care
2. Use this information in a bad way, like harassing or stalking the individuals that are doing their job (I'm assuming).
I don't understand people who do this kind of things and also expect support and sympathy. You have none from me at least. It is great that Medium and Github removes such databases to protect individuals that probably are innocent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean legally?
No, that this will probably cost Linkedin their users who work for government or government contractors.
Both sites use PII to target people and companies: how many annoying emails have you received from LinkedIn this week? And I mean the creepy ones, suggesting contacts based on minute details from your profile, or encouraging you to import all your contacts so they can be spammed?
But I guess if a user does it, it’s doxxing. I wonder if this is political, or maybe Medium and GitHub are just trying to avoid a potential fight with a federal agency.
Q "But don't we sell the same kind of data to our paying customers?" X "Yes, but when we do it, it's not doxxing" Q "Why not?" X "Because we would never do it for any nefarious reason" Q "What about that time we scraped the data of those groups that were linked to that reporter, so that one company could do oppo research and prepare a PR counterattack, targeting specific journalists" X "That wasn't nefarious. We made…
Was this just you making up someone's response? Because neither of those companies listed in the title sell people's info.
Your comment is just a terrible strawman.